On Natural Law

“nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne” -Jeremy Bentham, 1948

Natural Law

Just what exactly is that?

It certainly isn't Law of Nature alone. Breaking down the two words in this term we have Nature on one end and Law on the other. When these two words are grouped together like this, usually it is to point out a form of social law based on reason and on the nature of Man and his relationship with the nature of the world he inhabits and with society.

I'll say that again. Natural law is based on fundamental principles and of the relationship with the nature and reasoning of Man has with himself and others. It is an unwritten social law outside of legalese language.

Respectfully so, natural is more accurately considered as a theory and not something absolute, but it's not often mentioned as such even among other Maximalists of natural law theory.

Like legalese, it is a social construct but unlike legalese, it's actually more inclined among the nature and reasoning of good morals. Reasonable being key here.

For it is through reason that we can determine what is actually good and must be challenged socially just as much as bad reasoning must be. Why? Because we are only human.

The Laws of Nature is what science is trying to describe, however natural law is a battle of morals. And morals as we know, is something that is not inherit through experience but it is engrained into our very nature of man with social, conscious and spiritual being. It's why also when describing natural law we feel many connections because it speaks about something found deeply within ourselves. Something that has always been there and all one maybe needed was to be put into words.

Aquinas said justifiably so, his reason for it as,
“the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts” (Aquinas, ST I-II, Q.90, A.I)

In other words, moral law stems from the nature of human beings (henceforth, “natural law”).

But even this, what we call ‘natural law’, is still a human attempt to describe something deeper. If it’s a theory, then it isn’t absolute. And if it isn’t absolute, then it can’t be the final authority people treat it as. Including even if used against that other type of superstition we call jurisdiction among the legal world. People use Natural Law to fight legal authority, but still treat it as authority and frankly and unfortunately, this will not go well in Maritime courts if used outwardly so. They don't use it and will dismiss your attempts but that's an entire long blog series that I just don't have time for. In short and in practice, the systems people try to challenge with it don’t recognize it anyway.

So even when people reject government authority and turn to natural law… they may just be replacing one form of authority with another.

I don’t reject the principles behind it. But also I don’t accept any framework, natural or legal, as something beyond questioning.

So I'll leave you all with question of the day.

If morality comes from within, why do we keep trying to formalize it into systems? At what point does a principle stop guiding and start ruling?

Thank you.